Voice of the people (letter).

Joining Nato

January 30, 1994|By Ziemowit Smulkowski.

VERNON HILLS — Stephen Chapman's argument for denying NATO membership to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (Jan. 6) sounds like France in 1939. At that time the French argued against an armed response to Hitler's aggression by questioning the wisdom of spilling French blood over Danzig.

The folly of that position became apparent when Hitler, having secured his position in the East, occupied France. The lesson to be drawn from the French mistake is that only an unwavering commitment to fight aggression that only NATO membership for the Visegrad countries can provide is going to bring stability to the region.

Contrary to Mr. Chapman's thinking, such a commitment would not draw the United States into the "next Bosnia." The Visegrad countries are hardly similar to those of the former Yugoslavia, and relations among them are far better than those among Greece and Turkey, both longtime NATO members.

Mr. Chapman's "next Bosnia" scenario also ignores that NATO managed to contain the Soviet Union without getting the United States involved in any conflict.

Finally, Mr. Chapman's desire to appease Russian anxieties about their security ignores the fact that those same anxieties have been used by the Russians to justify expansion of their empire. Russian security interests, as opposed to imperial ambitions, would be far better served by a strong Central Europe providing an effective balance to the other powers in the region.